Festivus
First Post
Well, to be fair, there is a pile of stuff to track in 4E combats too. Front or back load, what's your preference?
You don't play 4E, but what did they get RIGHT?
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
Well, to be fair, there is a pile of stuff to track in 4E combats too. Front or back load, what's your preference?
I play it some, so I don't technically qualify. But I want to talk anyway. Several of the ones already mentioned are good, but my absolute favorite, which I haven't seen mentioned yet, is threatening reach. Creatures with "regular" reach can melee attack within range, but only threaten adjacent squares. Creatures with threatening reach work like 3e and threaten all the squares they reach. So not all giant creatures lock down the battlefield. I like having the choice as DM.
Odhanan
Adventurer
* The idea of Defenses ratings
* The unaligned part of the alignment system
* The Iron Heroes bits (see cperkins' post)
* The emphasis on group tactics and team play (how powers combine and so on)
* The Rituals system
I actually like some aspects of 4e quite a bit. It's the implementation, the disconnected nature of the mechanics, the one-track tactical focus of the game, and a whole bunch of other issues that wreck the system for me. I'm hoping Essentials comes back on quite a few of my beefs and makes 4e more palatable to me.
* The unaligned part of the alignment system
* The Iron Heroes bits (see cperkins' post)
* The emphasis on group tactics and team play (how powers combine and so on)
* The Rituals system
I actually like some aspects of 4e quite a bit. It's the implementation, the disconnected nature of the mechanics, the one-track tactical focus of the game, and a whole bunch of other issues that wreck the system for me. I'm hoping Essentials comes back on quite a few of my beefs and makes 4e more palatable to me.
the Jester
Legend
I'm a 4e dm, and I'm just going to say that I love the ease of dming, from monster creation to encounter design to actually running the game.
On a side note:
This is so not true that Mearls even addressed it pre-release.
On a side note:
This is so not true that Mearls even addressed it pre-release.
Last edited:
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Funny; the CB is one of the few things I don't like about 4e.
SoldierBlue
First Post
I bought the two pre-4e teaser books, and loved a lot of the design features, including:
Defence Ratings
"Point-of-light" campaign conceit
Higher hp at low level
The idea of powers for martial characters (if not the actual implementation)
How races fit together, with each having a role
Beautiful core rule books
What initiates an attack of opportunity (now opportunity attacks)
Tall elves
Skill challenges (I think; we could never get them to work...)
However, after a few honest tries in Summer 08, we now play Pathfinder...and I'll leave it at that...
Defence Ratings
"Point-of-light" campaign conceit
Higher hp at low level
The idea of powers for martial characters (if not the actual implementation)
How races fit together, with each having a role
Beautiful core rule books
What initiates an attack of opportunity (now opportunity attacks)
Tall elves
Skill challenges (I think; we could never get them to work...)
However, after a few honest tries in Summer 08, we now play Pathfinder...and I'll leave it at that...
Herremann the Wise
First Post
I'm not too sure I belong here as I don't really like 4e but play it once every 2 to 3 weeks.
As for things that I like, I can honestly state there is nothing I like as a whole as written, untouched. It is always, now this was a good idea but meshed with this it sucks. For example, the rest rules are a good idea, but healing surges are unintuitive in a way similar to Thac0. You grok it when you play it but if you stand back from it and put the surgical lights on it, you can think of numerous ways to make it "better".
Saving throws are a nice mechanic, completely butchered by the 10 or higher aspect. Why can my wizard shake off two wildly different effects just as easily?
It's like someone from R&D has a good idea but then the fun police arrive to simplify it and suck all the goodness out of it.
Weapon proficiency bonuses could be a fantastic mechanic but in the end they have been made so mathetically flavourless as to make me jump up and down in frustration.
There are so many good ideas floating around in 4e, it is a shame that all of them are let down in one way or another.
I suppose in the end, the Compendium is the one thing I can say is good without any reservation.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
As for things that I like, I can honestly state there is nothing I like as a whole as written, untouched. It is always, now this was a good idea but meshed with this it sucks. For example, the rest rules are a good idea, but healing surges are unintuitive in a way similar to Thac0. You grok it when you play it but if you stand back from it and put the surgical lights on it, you can think of numerous ways to make it "better".
Saving throws are a nice mechanic, completely butchered by the 10 or higher aspect. Why can my wizard shake off two wildly different effects just as easily?
It's like someone from R&D has a good idea but then the fun police arrive to simplify it and suck all the goodness out of it.
Weapon proficiency bonuses could be a fantastic mechanic but in the end they have been made so mathetically flavourless as to make me jump up and down in frustration.
There are so many good ideas floating around in 4e, it is a shame that all of them are let down in one way or another.
I suppose in the end, the Compendium is the one thing I can say is good without any reservation.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
I actually played 4E for about a year and a half before coming to Pathfinder, so I'm not sure how I qualify, but here's my two cents anyway.
• Point buy method as the standard for ability score generation. I love that you have to make a decision to have an 18 instead of whining to a DM to let you reroll until you get 18's. I've been doing point buy exclusively since 2001 or so... But I love how it's the standard now.
• Fixed hit points. Mainly for the same reasons that I like the point buy method for ability scores.
• Static defenses. I really like the idea that the initiator of an action is the only one rolling dice to determine its success. It seems very intuitive to me.
• Some degree of self-healing. I like the second wind thing in theory, although I think it needs some work.
• The consolidation of certain skills, such as Perception and Stealth.
Now, the things I don't like about 4E are considerably more numerous... But I'll gladly defer my expression of my opinions on that in respect to the original poster.
Yeah, this is one of the things that really made me scratch my head when 4E was coming around. I read Sun Tzu's Art of War when I was fourteen or so, when 2E was gearing up, and assumed that other DMs were interested in military philosophy. I fondly remember kobolds and goblins with superior tactics beating the snot out of vastly superior parties of PCs through smart use of the terrain (they certainly couldn't rely on their AC and hit points, after all).
Arguably, several historical battles were studies entirely in how small groups used terrain to their advantage against a supposedly superior force (such as the battle of Thermopylae, various battles at Mount Gilboa, or Caesar's assaults against the Gauls). It's always seemed odd to me that more D&D players aren't interested in historical battles.
In this respect, 4E's emphasis on terrain doesn't seem like a huge leap forward in game design so much as the game designers catching up to how I've been playing the game for years.
• Point buy method as the standard for ability score generation. I love that you have to make a decision to have an 18 instead of whining to a DM to let you reroll until you get 18's. I've been doing point buy exclusively since 2001 or so... But I love how it's the standard now.
• Fixed hit points. Mainly for the same reasons that I like the point buy method for ability scores.
• Static defenses. I really like the idea that the initiator of an action is the only one rolling dice to determine its success. It seems very intuitive to me.
• Some degree of self-healing. I like the second wind thing in theory, although I think it needs some work.
• The consolidation of certain skills, such as Perception and Stealth.
Now, the things I don't like about 4E are considerably more numerous... But I'll gladly defer my expression of my opinions on that in respect to the original poster.
Yeah, this is one of the things that really made me scratch my head when 4E was coming around. I read Sun Tzu's Art of War when I was fourteen or so, when 2E was gearing up, and assumed that other DMs were interested in military philosophy. I fondly remember kobolds and goblins with superior tactics beating the snot out of vastly superior parties of PCs through smart use of the terrain (they certainly couldn't rely on their AC and hit points, after all).
Arguably, several historical battles were studies entirely in how small groups used terrain to their advantage against a supposedly superior force (such as the battle of Thermopylae, various battles at Mount Gilboa, or Caesar's assaults against the Gauls). It's always seemed odd to me that more D&D players aren't interested in historical battles.
In this respect, 4E's emphasis on terrain doesn't seem like a huge leap forward in game design so much as the game designers catching up to how I've been playing the game for years.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Almost every RPG has something worthwhile about it. It's been awhile since I looked at 4E, but I liked the idea of getting rid of Vancian casting and toning down some of the wizard's power, the idea that 'everyone should get to do something cool' every round, not making the game so dependent on a dedicated healbot, and a handful of other things.
Similar Threads
